Metadata: SCHEMAS and other European projects

1. Metadata: SCHEMAS and other European projects Michael Day UKOLN: the UK Office for Library and Information Networking, University of Bath m.day@ukoln.ac.uk First Austrian Metadata Seminar, Vienna, 18 May 2001

2. Contents • Metadata projects • SCHEMAS project overview • Other European metadata developments: • Dublin Core • Subject gateways • Structural metadata • Preservation metadata

3. Metadata (1)

4. The SCHEMAS project Forum for Metadata Schema Implementers

5. Partners • PricewaterhouseCoopers Technology Consultants (PwC) • German National Research Centre for Information Technology (GMD) • UK Office for Library and Information Networking, University of Bath (UKOLN)

6. Audience • Who? • Metadata schema designers • Projects under the EU’s IST programme (Multimedia Content and Tools) and national initiatives • What for? • Information, guidance and tools for the description of Web resources of all kinds • Helping designers to use what is already there

7. Industry Publishing and rights management Audio-visual production and distribution Cultural heritage Education Research Academic services Geospatial information Other (e.g. Government) Domains • Not just Dublin Core • No ‘best way’ of doing things

8. Needs • General need for: • Standard methods for content description • Multiplicity of schemas, mixing and matching general and specific sets • But: • There is some duplication of effort, competition between standards and schemas • Potential confusion for implementers

9. Re-use • Why re-use existing schemas? • Not re-inventing wheels • Potential use of standard tools • Higher potential interoperability • End result: • Reduction of cost, now and in the future • Enlarging the potential audience • Interoperability

10. The information gap • Metadata schemas already identified: • Over 200 implementation activities • Around 90 standardisation activities • Very different levels of information • Conclusions: • Good information about schemas is badly needed • Need for mutual understanding, hopefully leading to harmonisation

11. SCHEMAS provides ... • Information provision • Metadata Watch Reports • Standards Framework Reports • Guidance material • Workshops • Registry implementation • Schemas, application profiles, people, projects, standards, tools, guidelines

12. SCHEMAS results • Workshops: • Bath, UK, June 2000 • Bonn, Germany, November 2000 • Budapest, Hungary, May 2001 • (The Hague, Netherlands) http://www.schemas-forum.org/workshops/ • Metadata Watch Reports (3): http://www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/ • Standards Framework Reports (1): http://www.schemas-forum.org/stds-framework/

13. SCHEMAS Registry • Experience with prototype registry developed by DESIRE II project • The registry is the place to publish metadata schemas: • ‘namespace schemas’ • ‘application profile schemas’ • As well as other information about schemas, e.g.: • standards, projects, people, tools, etc.

14. Thick registry Namespace schema App profile Mapping Thick Registry Usage guide Sample data Software tools Users

15. Thin registry Namespace schema Mapping App profile Sample data Usage guide Thin Registry Software tools Users

16. Registry approach • The SCHEMAS registry will be: • a ‘thick registry’ initially, with schemas registered at a central location • develop into a ‘thin registry’ in the future, with pointers to schemas on the Web • The technical basis will be: • RDF Schemas • EOR toolkit

17. EOR Toolkit

18. Registry functions • Registration • schemas from European projects and initiatives • information and reviews from SCHEMAS domain correspondents • Searching • Finding application profiles for re-use • Finding information and guidance

19. Application profiles • What is an application profile? • a schema identifying the use of elements from one or more namespaces in a particular application, with additional constraints • What is it used for? • To publish this information for a human audience • To help software configure

20. Contacts • Makx Dekkers • mail@makxdekkers.com • Rachel Heery • r.m.heery@ukoln.ac.uk • Tom Baker • thomas.baker@gmd.de • Web site: • http://www.schemas-forum.org/

22. An overview of European metadata projects

23. European projects • IST projects (FP5): • SCHEMAS: Forum for Metadata Schema implementers • Renardus: Academic Subject Gateway Service Europe • ETB: The European Schools Treasury Browser • METAe: Metadata Engine • COLLATE: Collaboratory for Annotation, Indexing and Retrieval of Digitized Historical Archive Material • COVAX ...

24. FP4 projects: • Aquarelle • BIBLINK • DESIRE • EULER (European Libraries and Electronic Resources in Mathematical Sciences) • NEDLIB

25. Subject gateways • Social Science Information Gateway • One of the first UK gateways (1994) • Funded as a pilot project by the ESRC • Based at the Centre for Computing in Economics (now Institute of Learning and Research Technology), University of Bristol • A model for the development of other gateways

26. Follett Report • Joint Funding Councils’ Libraries Review Group (December 1993): • JISC should fund the “development of a limited number of top level networking tools in the UK to encourage the growth of local subject access tools and information servers” • Electronic Libraries Programme

27. eLib Programme • Follett Implementation Group on Information Technology (FIGIT) • Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) • 1995-2001 • Funded by Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) • 3 phases, funded 100+ projects grouped together in various programme areas • Programme area for “Access to Networked Resources” projects

28. eLib subject gateways (1) • The eLib-funded projects: • ADAM - Art, Design, Architecture and Media • Biz/ed - Business education • EEVL - Engineering • History (previously IHR-Info) • OMNI - Biomedical sciences • SOSIG - Social sciences • ROADS - providing software and support

29. eLib subject gateways (2) • Main functions: • Serve specific communities - usually subject-based • Select Internet resources according to pre-defined quality criteria • Create resource descriptions (metadata) • Display both search and browse interfaces • Use of subject classification schemes and controlled vocabularies, links to thesauri

30. ROADS project Resource Organisation and Discovery in Subject-based services Partners: Department of Computer Studies, Loughborough University Institute of Learning and Research Technology (ILRT), University of Bristol UKOLN http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/roads/

31. ROADS objectives • Main project objectives: • To develop a configurable software toolkit for distributed resource discovery services • To support subject gateways (and interoperability between them) with other tools and guidelines • To implement and test relevant standards • To enable Web page authors to describe their own resources and supply this metadata to gateways

32. ROADS standards (1) • Metadata format: • ROADS/IAFA templates • A metadata format based on IAFA (Internet Anonymous FTP Archive) templates • Internet-Draft • Simple • Text based • Pragmatic choice

33. ROADS standards (2) • Search protocol: • Whois++ search and retrieve protocol • Internet standard (RFC) • Simple (lightweight) • Cross-searching across distributed services • Query routing (centroids)

34. ROADS interoperability • Guidelines: • Template Registry • Cataloguing guidelines • Metadata mappings • IAFA templates / USMARC / Dublin Core • Experimental Z39.50/Whois++ gateway • Project involvement in wider standardisation initiatives: • Dublin Core • Resource Description Framework

35. ROADS in use • ROADS software toolkit still in use: • SOSIG • Leeds University Library selected Web sites • Finnish Virtual Library (FVL) • Software still available: • Developed as an open-source software toolkit http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/

36. Taking eLib forwards ... • Towards end of eLib funding: • A recognition that gateways were useful • “... subject gateways have embedded themselves into professional practice very swiftly” (1997) • A need to consider sustainability • Most gateways are not embedded in institutions • Most gateways operate on a ‘project’ basis, short-term funding, research culture • Perceived to be in competition with each other and with private sector suppliers

39. Subject gateways • Definition: • From Koch • Services

40. Projects • ROADS • UK Electronic Libraries Programme • DESIRE • EELS (Engineering Electronic Library Sweden) • DutchESS • SSG-FI ...

41. Broker services • Acquarelle • EULER • AGORA (eLib) • RDN • Renardus

42. RDN • Resource Discovery Network: • Funded by the JISC • Launched in November 1999 • Objectives: • To extend coverage to areas not covered by the eLib gateways • To integrate access • To develop subject based portals for educational communities • To establish new organisational and business models (sustainability)

43. RDN Structure (1) • Centre (RDNC) • Part of JISC’s DNER (Distributed National Distributed Resource) Office • Roles: • Promoting and developing the network • Establishing frameworks to ensure quality, consistency, and interoperability across the RDN • Presenting gateways in various views to exploit their interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral value

44. RDN Structure (2) • Hubs • Faculty-level (higher education) • Some based on eLib subject gateways, others newly established • Made up of one or more gateways • Catalogue resources using a variety of schema • Offer Z39.50 targets for a central cross-searching service • Maximise potential for strategic partnerships and commercial arrangements within subject domains

45. RDN (4) • http://www.rdn.ac.uk/

46. RDN Hubs • Hubs: • Biome • PSIgate • EEVL • Humbul • SOSIG

47. RDN broker service (1) • RDN provides a central broker service that can access resource descriptions in all gateways • Service currently based on Whois++ cross-search • Moving to a Z39.50 based broker using the Bath Profile http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/bath/ • Experiments with new architectures • e.g., based on sharing records through interoperability agreements defined by the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)

48. RDN broker service (2) SOSIG SOSIG BIOME RDN Broker ‘ResourceFinder’ Humbul

49. RDN interoperability • Cataloguing guidelines • mandatory fields, schemes and qualifiers • Draft rules for content based on DCMES • Minimum set includes: Title, Subject, Description, Type, Identifier and Language. • Shared list of types • Ambition to provide common subject approach for cross-browsing • co-operation with HILT project and Renardus

50. RDN sustainability • RDN currently has over 20,000 manually created records • 70+ staff involved at about 30 UK institutions (many part-time) • New hubs planned: • creative arts & industries • tourism, leisure & hospitality • environment & geography • Is the RDN model sustainable?